Skip to content

Menu

LexBlog, Inc. logo
NetworkSub-MenuBrowse by SubjectBrowse by PublisherJoin the NetworkGet StartedSubscribeSupportContact
Search
Close

FTC Announces Civil Contempt Motion Seeking Receivership and Expanded Injunctive Relief for Alleged Order Violations

By A.J. Dhaliwal, Mehul Madia & Maxwell Earp-Thomas on January 29, 2026
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Antitrust-Law-Blog-Image-FTC-660x283

On January 13, the FTC announced that it had filed a combined motion in the U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada seeking to hold a payment processor and its executives in civil contempt for alleged violations of a previously entered stipulated permanent injunction and final order dating back to 2015.

The 2015 stipulated permanent injunction prohibited the payment processor from processing transactions for certain high-risk merchants, required enhanced underwriting and monitoring controls, and imposed specific obligations tied to chargeback thresholds and fraud-monitoring programs. The FTC alleges that, despite those requirements, the respondents repeatedly failed to comply after the order was entered.

According to the FTC, the payment processor allegedly:

  • Processed transactions for prohibited high risk merchants. The FTC alleges the payment processor continued processing for merchants listed on a card network’s high risk termination list, in violation of restrictions imposed by the stipulated order.
  • Failed to conduct adequate underwriting of high risk merchants. The FTC alleges the payment processor did not reasonably screen or diligence high risk merchants during onboarding, as required by the order.
  • Failed to monitor and suspend processing after trigger thresholds. The FTC alleges the payment processor continued processing after chargeback or return rate thresholds were exceeded, without conducting required investigations or preparing required internal reports, in violation of the order.
  • Assisted or permitted evasion of fraud monitoring programs. The FTC alleges the payment processor assisted merchants in evading fraud monitoring programs or continued processing for merchants engaged in such evasion, contrary to order requirements.

FTC is seeking at least $52.9 million in compensatory relief for consumers, coercive sanctions to compel compliance, and modification of the existing order, including permanent industry bans for the individual defendants and the appointment of a receiver.

Putting It Into Practice: The FTC’s motion highlights the risks payment processors and payment facilitators face when court ordered obligations are not fully embedded into operational systems. Market participants subject to injunctions should ensure that order requirements governing high risk list screening, underwriting standards, monitoring thresholds, and termination triggers are implemented as mandatory controls with clear escalation paths and documentation requirements.

Photo of A.J. Dhaliwal A.J. Dhaliwal

A.J. is a partner in the Finance and Bankruptcy Practice Group in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office.

Read more about A.J. DhaliwalEmail
Photo of Mehul Madia Mehul Madia

Mehul Madia, special counsel in the firm’s Washington, D.C. office, provides deep consumer finance and fintech expertise to clients, leveraging more than 15 years’ of public and private sector experience.

Read more about Mehul MadiaEmail
Photo of Maxwell Earp-Thomas Maxwell Earp-Thomas

Max is an associate in the Finance & Bankruptcy Practice Group in the firm’s Orange County office.

Read more about Maxwell Earp-ThomasEmail
  • Posted in:
    Administrative and Regulatory
  • Blog:
    Consumer Finance and Fintech Blog
  • Organization:
    Sheppard, Mullin, Richter & Hampton LLP
  • Article: View Original Source

Call us at 1-800-913-0988 or email sales@lexblog.com.

Facebook LinkedIn Twitter RSS
The Library at LexBlog
  • About LexBlog
  • The Field We Built
  • Library at LexBlog
  • Our Beliefs
  • Our Team
  • Contact LexBlog
  • Disclaimer
  • Editorial Policy
  • Terms of Service
  • Get Started
  • Publishing Solutions
  • Compass
  • Submit a Request
  • Support Center
  • System Status
Copyright © 2026, LexBlog, Inc. All Rights Reserved.
Law blog design & platform by LexBlog LexBlog Logo